[Edit: Oops, I misread the UI. I retract this comment!]
@sunwillrise I hope you’ll forgive me singling you out, you’re certainly not the only person to make what seems to me to be the same mistake, but it seems to me that your use of the “I checked, it’s true” react is a misfire here. I think the react makes sense for factual claims that are well-operationalized and where some independent fact-checking occurred. The text you highlighted with that react is an attempted reframe of someone else’s position — a reframe is not a claim about the part of the world that the original person is talking about, it’s a claim about someone’s position. I think the appropriate react to communicate your epistemic state is to “agree” react to the statement starting from “I would phrase”, indicating that you concur that this is an accurate restatement.
(I think the meaning of the “I checked, it’s true” react in this context would be “I checked with the person who this is a paraphrase of, and they concurred that this was an accurate reframe of their position”.)
I’m… confused? I thought the part I had reacted to was this:
I think there has also been a trend towards the longest-hours-worked being for wealthier people rather than poorer people.
Which seems like a well-operationalized factual claim that I looked up sources for (and then linked in my 2 other comments here). I’m not sure what this has to do with paraphrasing someone’s position; are you saying that react should be used only for paraphrasing others, or what? Or that my sources were inadequate (which is a somewhat reasonable criticism, FWIW)?
Perhaps you thought this was a react to the entire comment, as opposed to an inline react? I’m not sure why it showed up that way, but you can see in the text above the names of those who reacted and anti-reacted that the react was only to that part of aphyer’s comment.
Darn it, I misread the UI. When I hover over the react, it only shows me the bold section of the following quote as being reacted-to:
I would phrase what you are looking for as a world where society has nothing to offer people that is nice enough they are willing to work an unpleasant job to produce it.
It turns out that’s actually the text referred to by the other react (the “misunderstands position” react, which makes sense in context). I don’t know why the relevant section (“I think there has also been a trend...”) isn’t highlighted when I hover over your react.
Anyway, I retract the above, my apologies for the mistake!
[Edit: Oops, I misread the UI. I retract this comment!]
@sunwillrise I hope you’ll forgive me singling you out, you’re certainly not the only person to make what seems to me to be the same mistake, but it seems to me that your use of the “I checked, it’s true” react is a misfire here. I think the react makes sense for factual claims that are well-operationalized and where some independent fact-checking occurred. The text you highlighted with that react is an attempted reframe of someone else’s position — a reframe is not a claim about the part of the world that the original person is talking about, it’s a claim about someone’s position. I think the appropriate react to communicate your epistemic state is to “agree” react to the statement starting from “I would phrase”, indicating that you concur that this is an accurate restatement.
(I think the meaning of the “I checked, it’s true” react in this context would be “I checked with the person who this is a paraphrase of, and they concurred that this was an accurate reframe of their position”.)
I’m… confused? I thought the part I had reacted to was this:
Which seems like a well-operationalized factual claim that I looked up sources for (and then linked in my 2 other comments here). I’m not sure what this has to do with paraphrasing someone’s position; are you saying that react should be used only for paraphrasing others, or what? Or that my sources were inadequate (which is a somewhat reasonable criticism, FWIW)?
Perhaps you thought this was a react to the entire comment, as opposed to an inline react? I’m not sure why it showed up that way, but you can see in the text above the names of those who reacted and anti-reacted that the react was only to that part of aphyer’s comment.
Darn it, I misread the UI. When I hover over the react, it only shows me the bold section of the following quote as being reacted-to:
It turns out that’s actually the text referred to by the other react (the “misunderstands position” react, which makes sense in context). I don’t know why the relevant section (“I think there has also been a trend...”) isn’t highlighted when I hover over your react.
Anyway, I retract the above, my apologies for the mistake!
Here, you can go hunt down the people who used the react that way on this comment instead.